Browsing February 22nd, 2008

Beverly Hills, My Way

February 22, 2008 2:42 pm : Comments 000

With the snow piling up outside my office window and the ice and slush taking over midtown’s sidewalks 23 stories below, can you fault me for having California on my mind?

It’s not just a weather thing. I love California. If not for some immovable practicalities, I’d pack up and head up there tomorrow – earthquakes, fires, and landslides be damned. For now, I’ll just have to resign myself to visitor status.

Beverly Hills is just one of the many places I like to visit there. Don’t get me wrong – without question, I’m totally a fish out of water there. I’m not a posh guy, I have no clue what’s “hot” or trendy at any given time, I don’t shop in exclusive boutiques, and I don’t get dazzled by celebrities. Hmm…maybe that’s the appeal – the people and lifestyle there are so foreign, I’m drawn to it like a tourist from a small town in Arkansas is drawn to the top of the Empire State Building (And no, I’ve never been. Seriously).

Outsider or not, I’ve been there enough times to get a feel for places to go and places to avoid. Here’s a quick peek at some of my faves:

Where (and Where Not) to Stay

I typically avoid pretentious, trendy hotels. The rooms are often small, the service snotty and often unprofessional, and too often the bar or restaurant is closed because of a private party. I usually go with a Westin property, except when I’m staying in the Los Angeles area.

The Avalon

My favorite hotel is called The Avalon, a retro-style boutique just minutes from the heart of Beverly Hills. The place is indeed fashionable (and, for the record, the bar was closed for a private party one night during my last visit), but the service at the front desk and the restaurant is incredibly friendly and efficient. Think East Coast polish without the accompanying snide attitude. It boasts a romantic outdoor pool and a highly endorsable restaurant called the blue and blue. While the menu is somewhat limited, the food is creative, delicious, and artfully presented. Even their burger is amazing.

Sadly, The Avalon was fully booked one of the nights I was in town (darn those Grammys!), so I checked into Maison 140, which is owned by the same company. Let’s just say you wouldn’t know it to stay there.

Maison 140

Maison 140 bills itself as an “intimate” hotel, which I’ve learned is the hospitality industry’s precious little euphemism for ridiculously small rooms that are badly in need of a major renovation [note to reader: photo to right is actual size]. The hotel staff is a tad snooty, save for this charming woman from Fiji who works the graveyard shift at the front desk. Admittedly, Maison 140 is better situated than the Avalon (it’s located right in the heart of Beverly Hills, around the corner from the famed Peninsula Hotel) and the easy-access self-parking is a big plus, but it’s still a far cry from The Avalon. If you can’t get into The Avalon, I’d recommend the renovated Residence Inn about a mile down the road instead.

Where to Refuel

Peet’s Coffee

As I’ve noted before, I’m a big fan of Peet’s Coffee, a chain of coffee shops mostly located on the West Coast (count your blessings, Starbucks).

The Peet’s on Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills is filled with customers from the moment the doors open at 6 a.m. I couldn’t help but notice that the Starbucks down the street was nearly empty when I passed by. The same is true in San Francisco and Boston: at the Peet’s I visited in those cities, the closest Starbucks were invariably empty.

If I was in executive management at Starbucks, I’d be worried about Peet’s potential expansion plans. If I was a shareholder, well, I would have bailed out of the company a long time ago.

Urth Caffé

If you are hankering for a healthy breakfast and are willing to pay a premium to eat organic, I highly recommend Urth Caffé, which is right across the street from Peet’s. If you are looking for a comfortable perch to watch the beautiful people of Southern California and their dogs, this is the place.

Massimo Ristorante

New York is widely regarded as having the best restaurants, but I got to tell you, the Los Angeles area is definitely a close second. One of the best meals I’ve had in recent memory was at Massimo Ristorante located right off Rodeo Drive. Despite its upscale location, the place welcomes us mere mortals. In fact, my cousin and I were seated at one of the best tables in the house. Everything at Massimo was perfect: the perfectly chilled martini, the atmosphere, the décor, the service, and of course, the food. I can’t wait to go back!

Where to Walk … Or Rather How Not to Walk

Jaywalking is a fact of life in New York. If there’s a break in traffic, you go for it. One of Beverly Hills’ finest was kind enough to remind me last week that it is a big no-no everywhere else. I believe the term he used was “illegal”.

It was a glorious sunny day and I was in the heart of Beverly Hills’ shopping district. Spotting an interesting clothing store across the street, I stepped to the curb and looked left, looked right, looked left again (my mom taught me well) and then trotted across to the other side.

You don’t do that in Beverly Hills. Just ask Johnny Depp.

A motorcycle officer witnessed my civil disobedience and pulled me over… near the dress shirts in the clothing store. He was quite angry. Apparently, he had called to me to stop and wasn’t pleased that I ignored him. The truth is, I honestly didn’t hear him. He demanded my driver’s license, asked me a battery of questions, including the purpose of my visit and what I did for a living. I apologized profusely for my transgression and begged him not to write me a ticket. Alas, he spared me the ticket, for which I am very grateful.

Imagine getting a ticket for jaywalking while inside some snooty store. Oh, the indignity…

Share This Post

Serving Toni Locy Her Just Deserts

7:19 am : Comments 000

Related post about Toni Locy and the federal shield law.

Compared to their brethren in other countries, U.S.-based reporters enjoy unparalleled power and constitutional protection. America’s founding fathers understood the need for a strong independent press to serve as a watchdog against government tyranny, hence the passing of the First Amendment and the notion of journalists’ collective role as the Fourth Estate.

At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, James Madison and his fellow patriots had legitimate cause for wanting to ensure freedom of the press. The British Empire had “long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown“; the revolutionists knew all too well the importance of keeping the government accountable to the populace. There was no Internet, no radio, no TV. The only way to expose wrongdoing or communicate new ideas was through the printing press.

But much has changed since 1791. Whereas reporters were once primarily independent ideologues driven by the pursuit of truth and fairness, the industry today is becoming increasingly characterized by glory-seeking individuals who are more concerned with getting scoops and breaking “exclusives” to further build their personal brand. The industry is now dominated by media conglomerates whose primary concern is profits; accordingly, cementing a reputation for consistently being first-to-publish can garner far more professional dividends than consistently being fair and accurate.

The profound journalism shift has been a real boon for those in positions of power that seek to use the media to serve their own agendas. Once upon a time, reporters were a far more skeptical and suspicious lot. They understood the potential to be exploited by outsiders, and were far more vigilant in safeguarding their corner of the public trust. They were not “friendly” with politicians, government prosecutors, or the police, and they never simply took them at their word.

But as I said, times have changed, and not for the better. The mantra of “show me the proof” has been replaced by “give me the exclusive”. This new mindset is disturbing, but it is particularly alarming when it is applied to individuals being investigated by The Law. All too often, names are prematurely named, heavy allegations are lightly thrown, reputations and lives are unfairly destroyed. From the feeding frenzy coverage of Richard Jewell, who the media aggressively – and erroneously – reported perpetrated the bombing of the 1996 Olympics, to the 38 members of the Duke Lacrosse team who were wrongfully accused of rape by a politically driven prosecutor, there have been far too many innocents needlessly sacrificed at New Journalism’s altar.

Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, is but yet another of these media victims. Back in 2002, USA Today and other media outlets repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was being investigated for playing a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Dr. Hatfill was first publicly fingered by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had said he was a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.

Like Jewell and the Duke Lacrosse team members, Dr. Hatfill was wholly innocent. He’s now suing the federal government for destroying his reputation by injudiciously leaking information about him to the media. The case is before U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton who on Wednesday held Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote multiple stories about Dr. Hatfill being a key target in the anthrax investigation, in contempt of court for refusing to identify the anonymous sources she spoke with in preparing the stories.

Journalists are crying foul. Judith Miller, whose “exclusives” in The New York Times years ago about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction have since been discredited, wailed on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal yesterday that Mr. Ashcroft, not “independent journalism,” should be held responsible for Dr. Hatfill’s plight. Shamefully, Ms. Miller subtly tries to cast a pall over Dr. Hatfill’s innocence by noting he was “long under suspicion but never charged with any crime.” According to Judge Walton, “there’s not a scintilla [emphasis mine] of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks.

Mr. Ashcroft was indeed the first to publicly out Dr. Hatfill as a target in the anthrax investigation. But Ms. Locy took that ball and ran with it. She did multiple stores citing unnamed sources repeating the allegations about Dr. Hatfill being a target. While it’s true that some of Ms. Locy’s stories noted that the government’s evidence was not conclusive, inclusion of such caveats shouldn’t result in a free pass for reporters to recklessly abandon their Bigger Picture fairness responsibilities or to turn a blind eye to the high-stake ethical issues in play. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, after all. Just ask those whose lives have been utterly decimated because some brash reporter had gotta-get-the-scoop tunnel vision.

Ms. Miller quotes Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as saying that the steep fines Judge Walton has imposed on Ms. Locy will make it “very risky for future journalists to write anything about a suspect who has not already been arrested and indicted.”

Frankly, given the life-altering reputational devastation when the wrong person is named, I would see that as a major step forward.

Share This Post